Because it’s impossible for pro-aborts to claim the moral high ground when debating abortion on the procedure’s merits, it’s more common for them to shift the conversation to different criteria that superficially cast pro-lifers in a less sympathetic light.

This weekend, RH Reality Checkpublished an article by Ann Rose, a diarist at the rabidly left-wing Daily Kos, which purports to explain that pro-lifers aren’t interested in saving babies at all; we just want to dominate women’s sex lives:

[A]n anti-abortion right-wing Republican gets pregnant and doesn’t want to be, she has a “good reason” for not wanting to be pregnant and get an abortion. You see, her reason is different and more justifiable than the pathetic excuses of all those sluts in the waiting room at the abortion clinic. All those sluts are getting an abortion for “convenience” and “selfishness” and maybe even “punishment” for being a slut.

I’ve seen it with my very own eyes. One day, they’re out picketing the abortion clinic. Next day, oops, they’re inside getting an abortion. Then, they’re back outside picketing. Major disconnect.

I’m sure there are women whose pro-life principles crumble when they find themselves pregnant. I’m also sure there are pro-abortion misogynists, gun control activists who pack heat, ministers who lie, charity workers who cheat on their taxes, environmentalists who litter, and school choice opponents who send their own kids to private schools. So what?

Human nature is fallen, and hypocrisy occurs in all walks of life. But unless that hypocrisy is practiced by a statistically significant percentage of a group, or condoned and encouraged by that group, it’s irrelevant. And while Rose clearly wants her readers to think pro-lifers are secretly aborting left and right, she offers no evidence whatsoever that it’s true.

There are 45,000,000 women out there who have had legal abortions in this country since it was legalized in 1973, 39 years ago. You’d think that would be a major voting block that politicians wouldn’t want to piss off. But, the politicians continue to hammer away and women who’ve had abortions and their families continue to turn a deaf ear.

Boy, that is weird. It’s almost as if women were individuals with a diverse range of viewpoints, or their experiences with abortion weren’t uniformly positive…

Additionally, using birth control is equated with being ready for sex. And this puritanical society has told us that it’s not good or “ladylike” to be anticipating sex. The underlying meme of the anti-abortionists is that sex should only be for procreation within the confines of marriage. So, I guess that women in menopause who can’t procreate or sterile men should be denied the pleasures of a sexual relationship, eh?

There’s so much wrong with this paragraph that one scarcely knows where to begin. Anticipating sex is one thing; anticipating sex without respect for the potential consequences is something else entirely. Pro-lifers certainly believe in keeping sex within marriage, but not because we have any interest in ensuring that nobody has sex without the express purpose of reproducing; rather, because marriage best prepares people for the possibility of reproduction, and is the best environment for whatever children they may bear. And Rose’s talk of “denying” people sexual relationships is absurd—last time I checked, adult extramarital sex was legal, even among the infertile, and nobody’s trying to change that.

Oh, but somehow Viagra et al are OK. But, what are all those men going to do with all those erections if nobody can have sex with them? So, the men get to freely manufacture erections, but the women who get pregnant from those erections aren’t allowed birth control or abortion.

Aaaaaaaaaand here’s where the author abandons any semblance of a rational argument. Women are certainly “allowed” birth control; they’re simply not allowed to force other people to pay for it. To the extent that there’s any sort of double standard for Viagra coverage, her quarrel is with someone else—does anyone seriously think that pro-lifers want the government forcing private insurers to cover any sex-related drugs?

When someone so completely avoids discussing her opponent’s main argument, it’s usually a sign she’s acutely aware of her own position’s weakness. In this case, Ann Rose wildly overcompensates for her inability to substantively defend abortion by lashing out against pro-lifers for the most bizarre offenses imaginable. It doesn’t speak well of RH Reality Check that this is apparently what they consider “evidence-based information, provocative commentary, and interactive dialogue.”

“but not because we have any interest in ensuring that nobody has sex without the express purpose of reproducing”

Actually according to canon law you cannot even get married if you are impotent since the sole purpose of sex is reproduction.

Canon law stipulates that “a couple in which one of the partners is antecedently and perpetually impotent may not contract any marriage.” Actually, Canon 1084 §1 says that it “invalidates the marriage”.

According to cannon law any man or woman who is impotent cannot get married. Straight from the horses mouth so to speak. I advise anyone who is interested to look into it.

I don’t think it actually does apply to Catholics, because I’ve known Catholic couples who were married in the Church when the woman was obviously too old to get pregnant anymore. The Catholic Church also advocates NFP, which is all about figuring out when you can have sex without getting pregnant. This strikes me as one of those ancient things that’s still “on the books” because no one’s bothered to change it. Kind of like how some places still have laws saying that businesses all must have rails to tie horses to.

Guest

Yes. This would apply to pro life catholics. And the cannon law is still applied, most often in other countries. It even went all the way to the vatican, where they upheld the ruling forbiding a paraplegic man from marrying due to his inability to reproduce. One specific, heartbreaking, example is Hedir Antonio de Brito of Brazil. Again please look into it if you dont believe me. So again all those marriages would be ‘invalid”… using their words not mine.

Guest

Actually excuse me. I misposted earlier. People who are infertile can get married. People who are phyiscally unable to have sex cannot.

http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

So, while it’s unfortunate discrimination, it’s not connected to anything pro-lifers think about having sex without reproducing.

Letscook1

This is true. And it wasn’t uncommon in the past for nobility and royalty to have marriages “annulled” because of their “wife being barren”. (During that time infertility was always blamed on the woman.

http://stopthecap.ca Alex Perrier

i’m sure that not every pro-lifer is for healthy marriages and purity, but i am.

The sexual revolution (not that “revolution” has a positive meaning here) has brought us pornography, chemically abortive birth control, surgical and medical abortion, and the great multiplication of people with AIDS or with other STDs. None of these things brings us joy or improves our society, contrary to what anyone may say.

Marriage in and of itself isn’t enough, as 40%, 50% or 66% (the statistic is up for debate) of marriages end up in divorce. People need to respect their vows and strengthen their marriage with good, positive morals.

Here in Canada, we already have the government using taxpayer money to subsidize birth control and abortion for all who want it. This is awful. How does this benefit the abstinent, or anyone who uses NFP (Natural Family Planning)? This money should go to feed the hungry instead, or create community centres and programs to help youth achieve important goals. It shouldn’t be wasted for sex, which is much more a want than it is a need. Students until at least 18 need to focus on their studies and the good they can do with their life, instead of being distracted by sexual pressure.

Letscook1

AIDS is most common in countries where no “sexual revolution” has taken place. You are much more likely to get AIDS in India or Sub Saharan Africa. Women are still little more than chattel, there is no access to contraceptives, and you can not say no to your husband. A Scandinavian woman is much less likely than any other woman on the planet to get AIDS and these women have had sex ed since the first grade.

Students under 18 have sexual pressure thanks to a funny thing called biology. Human beings don’t go through puberty at 25 even though it would be far more practical. If you are Canadian you have one of the highest standards of living in the world. What’s so terrible about your life compared to most other people on the planet?

http://stopthecap.ca Alex Perrier

“AIDS is most common in countries where no ‘sexual revolution’ has taken place.”

They still have explosive sexual activity here. It may be more rampant than in European and American countries, but 1 out of 4 teenage girls in the USA has an STD, which is nothing to brag account. It should be just as high, if not higher, in Canada.

“[Scandinavian] women have had sex ed since the first grade.”
North Americans have had pretty good sexual education too, although i’m not sure since what age. It still doesn’t change that STDs (even “minor” ones) are too much commonplace.

“sexual pressure thanks to a funny thing called biology”
and also media influence, peer pressure, sexual “education” and government saying “hey! If you wanna have sex, we’ll pay the bills!” If sex was treated more like a privilege than a right, then there’s a chance that at least some people would be more responsible about what they do sexually. It’s a privilege because a sexual couple normally develops trust over time, and the relationship doens’t center around sex. Plus, consent and a minimal age are both required.

Every penny you give to the major telecoms (Bell, Rogers, Shaw in Canada, Comcast and Time Warner in USA, etc…) further pushes this sexual agenda, because they almost always own some to many channels with this garbage. Bell in Canada even has its own pay-per-view porn channels, Venus. People should buy from resellers instead, in order to invest their money wisely. If popular music, movies and shows promoted the healthy ways of living abstinence, marriage and purity instead of the great filth that constantly airs, we would see more children and teens imitate this behaviour instead.

“Canadian[s have…] one of the highest standards of living in the world. What’s so terrible[…?]”
For anyone out of the womb, yes, life looks wonderful. For unborn children, you’re treated as a mere “choice” that would be better off dead more often than not. Abortion is completely subsidized by the provincial governments in almost all cases, which leaves much less funding for those who do want to choose life for their child.

Life seems hopeless for the unborn children that are considered a burden to society. If we were more responsible sexually, then we wouldn’t have gone so low as to allow babies to be killed. Every year, the Parliament plays a light show (Mosaika) which boasts about such rights. This shouldn’t be, and it should make people sick.

Letscook1

Fetuses are aborted at higher rates in countries where abortion is illegal. The STDs you are talking about tend to be HPV and Herpes which have been in the human population for a long time and didn’t just start with the advent of cable television. Cervical cancer was first documented in 400 BCE but there are just better methods of testing for the presence of HPV than in the past. Most women with healthy immune systems will clear it on their own. How do you explain the high STD rate in countries that have had “no sexual revolution”, have no cable television or even television at all, and still have the same gender roles for women over a series of thousands of years?

And most people throughout history have had premarital sex. Recent testing of birth certificates vs. marriage certificates of colonial American women show that the majority of them were pregnant before they were married.

Wander Must

“AIDS is most common in countries where no “sexual revolution” has taken place. You are much more likely to get AIDS in India or Sub Saharan Africa.”

This is absurd. The statement could only come from someone with no familiarity with the African situation. Free sex is rampant in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rampant. Let me tell you, people are not getting AIDS from drug needles.

Letscook1

Women don’t have much choices in Africa. In some countries men have twice the literacy rate as women because boys are valued more. In some cultures women have undergone female genital mutilation so they are not even having sex because it “feels good”. This isn’t a “free love” situation. Many African societies are extremely conservative, look at the anti-gay laws being legislated that you guys probably love.

http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

I don’t think too many people are against healthy marriages – they probably just have different standards and definitions for what constitutes a healthy marriage.

http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

“Additionally, using birth control is equated with being ready for sex. And this puritanical society has told us that it’s not good or “ladylike” to be anticipating sex.”

What year is she living in? 1950? WHAT puritanical society?

http://profile.yahoo.com/AQC7KBJXPW2RTFFUPZVEIKXLNU Emily

You’re right; I haven’t heard of anyone wanting to ban birth control. That argument is so silly. Also, many married women use birth control to delay starting families until they are financially ready. Nothing wrong with that, and it doesn’t mean they are out screwing half the town. It’s funny the crazy ideas liberals want to put in our heads.

guest

Catholics believe birth control is a sin; that anyone using it will go to hell.

Guest

Two things:

1. Teaching that a certain behaviour is sinful isn’t the same as trying to criminalize it. Ireland has completely banned abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger. It also has an excellent, very active pro-life movement and a heavy Catholic influence in some parts. Yet there are no campaigns to ban any type of contraception.

2. You clearly need to read up on your Catholic teachings, specifically the stuff about reconciliation and forgiveness, if you think that they teach that anyone who commits a sin will go to hell.

Guest

Not sure if I can agree with your title. The ironically named RH Reality Check has published some pretty bizarre stuff. Amanda Marcotte comes to mind…